Do Exogamic relationships yield stronger offspring? The reason being, the two parents being more gentically separate then if they were of the same ethnicity. For example, a Portuguese mates with a Amazonian; the offsping would be superior to a full blood Amazonian and a Full blood Portuguese becasue it would have genes from two very distinct groups. Modern Brazilians are the descendents of these 2 groups, and West Africans. Would they be the most superior people in the world?

On the opposite spectrum, high degree to endogamy has terrible effects on offspring health. The Amish for example have numerous abnormalities. Most of them are descendents of the same 500 or so first immigrants.

Same in every animal for the most part. There's a certain point where you're just inbreeding. I went to highschool in one of North America's Amish AND Mennonite capitals so I've seen it first hand. You get some mena's that turn out alright but those are the ones whose parents married outside of the community and wanted to break off. Don't see Amish descendants as often because I think they are generally less miserable than the Mennonites because they aren't constantly exposed to a "better" life (Amish have their own suuuuper friendly community whereas Mennonites share the town where they are exposed to fancy clothes and new people and ideas).

That said it applies to dogs too. Pure bred animals almost always have more problems than a mix.

In all cases it's because inbreeding decreases the amount of variable genes available for offspring. Those Mennonites I mentioned have already used all their beneficial genomes and now there is nothing to add because, ultimately, they are inbreeding when they marry another menna. When that happens the chromosomes can overlap and that's how you get defects. Two different parents allow for the most variety of genetic coding available and so the least chance of imperfection in a child. There's no debate it's just biology.

In theory yes. In the animal kingdom, the females often mate with the alpha male first since he's the strongest and dominant leader it benefits them as a whole. The same thing exists in the past with humans, since then physical strength ain't the only factor as looks, money, and intelligence often comes into it. A kid is more likely to be smarter if both parents are smart.

However, it could also backfire.

Imagine this situation:

Parent A is immune to Disease 1 but is extremely weak against Disease 2.Parent B is immune to Disease 2 but is extremely weak against Disease 1.

Four outcomes are possible:

The offspring could inherit both immunities and thus be genetically superior. The offspring could inherit either one immunity and one susceptibility to a disease at which point, no benefit and no loss.The offspring could inherit neither immunity and end up screwed for life.

There is a less chance of the child inheriting no immunity though, than inheriting either immunity. 3/4 chance of inheriting an immunity but 1/4 chance of inheriting both.

Humans have been doing this with pets for years because it's selective breeding. In terms of the race horse community, breeding a horse with a huge amount of stamina, with a horse that is really fast can create a horse with both or a horse that makes no difference. It's trying to control natural selection, by eradicating weaker traits and spreading beneficial traits.

On the other hand, having a very selective gene pool often results in genetic abnormalities occuring. Generations of brother-sister mating for example increases the risk of the offspring having a genetic abnormality with each generation. This is the reason that incest is illegal in pretty much most societies.

Humans have been doing this with pets for years because it's selective breeding. In terms of the race horse community, breeding a horse with a huge amount of stamina, with a horse that is really fast can create a horse with both or a horse that makes no difference. It's trying to control natural selection, by eradicating weaker traits and spreading beneficial traits.

Having been raised on a horse farm I can tell you that I've rarely seen a colt that's come from two different strong breeding lines come out as anything except for impressive (although, admittedly you get the odd average standardbred but always race quality) and I've seen hundreds. You have the odd one out but usually it's because the mare was old or there was a problem with the pregnancy or the owner just flat out lied (or was misinformed) about how good his horse was. Almost never because of a bad genetic lineup when done correctly. For one example I can use my horses sire, Armbro Agile (owned by a family down the road from us... an obnoxiously rich family). Armrbro was Irish national champ and is one of the few horses I know of to win the Canadian Triple Crown. GD horse sired damn near 150 foals and as far as I know nearly every single one made money. My horse (Will B Agile) practically paid for our farm and I know of numerous other wildly successful horses of the Agile line and that's just the one example of a successful breeding line. So I think generally the mix will result in strength far, far more often than weakness at least in my experience with horses.

quote

This is the reason that incest is illegal in pretty much most societies.

It depends how you look at it and whether or not you consider it important to preserve/conserve people/populations who have recessive or undesirable genes that may be useful to future humans.

An example of recessive would be Blue eyes. If everybody cross bred all the time then eventually blue eyes would die out as generally only caucasians have them now. If you deem it important that people with blue eyes continue to exist to keep the genepool as diverse/healthy as possible then you'd have to make sure that a few people were still breeding exclusively within a community (a large one to prevent inbreeding)

An example of 'undesirable' would be something like the genetics which cause Autism. People see autism as a disability and would want it to be bred out of the genepool as a genetic fault/mishap, but then some amazingly clever people have autism and the difference in the way their brain works could be seen as an advantage in some ways. I have a relative with autism who works in banking because he is so good with numbers. If we ever live in a world where numbers become really important to survival we'd wish that autism was still a thing and so a healthy genepool would have to include it.

Well it could be beneficial to the offspring... but in no more amazing a way than the color of the offspring's eyes. Really it depends more on the individual parents than the origin of the parent, and there are a number of ways it could go right, maybe a little more successful than endogamy, but there are also numerous ways it could go wrong. Not just in ways that affect the specific offspring, but also in ways that could affect the gene pools long-term, like certain ethnicity-specific traits. Like anything really. You're right in theory but also a little late to introduce this idea.

Also, Master Tenku, we're in *bleep*ing February, get with the times and fix that signature.

He/She will be the best dancing, pizza making, alcoholic chef I've ever seen. And I have no idea wtf skin color will be there because Irish folks are pale as *bleep* while Dominicans can be black as shit.